On 15. 11. 19 14:03, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2019-11-14, Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote:
I've asked whether it wouldn't be in fact much easier to keep the
default versions of our packages non-modular.
[...]
Arguments were made that default modular streams are planned to
deliver the exact same experience as non-modular packages, yet it was
not said if it wouldn't be easier to just deliver non-modular packages
for default versions.
Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question:
**What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
packages?**
[...]
Considering we have 6 default modular streams, let me acknowledge that
for the maintainers who decided to deliver default modular streams
instead of non-modular packages, there clearly are some benefits.
While some of us might not understand them, let's not say there are
none. But even if there are clear benefits for the maintainers of
those modules, I'm asking about the benefits for everybody else.
You answered yourself: "default modular streams are planned to deliver
the exact same experience as non-modular packages." If they provide the
same experience, they provide the same set of benefits. Hence there
cannot be any "benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
packages". Q.E.D.
That is indeed how I understand it.
If you want a disuccion, then you should not have stripped all
modularity features and than ask what are the benefits of modularity
without modularity.
What features have I stripped?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
